I've been looking at the differences of XHTML and HTML5. I've always used XHTML but I feel it's about the right time for a change.

The main differences I spotted where the new tags which made things more semantic, this includes:<content><header><nav><article><section><footer>

The doctype was much easier, as you did not need that long-winded doctype as we had before.

There are no self-closing tags either (as I've understood). To be honest I don't like this change. I feel all tags must be closed, or so I was taught back in university. Either case it is what it is and they seam to be history.

I've spotted to pretty cool new video and audio properties. I a bit scared of getting too deep on those. w3school has not examples of them, it just lists them, maybe examples would be a good way to know how to implement these.

I won't be taking a deep plunge just yet, but I feel it's time to start embrassing this new technology. If I missed anything please post something up. Hope this helps others to make the transition too.

I've been looking at the differences of XHTML and HTML5. I've always used XHTML but I feel it's about the right time for a change.

Wow, that must have been some heavy drinking and/or smoking to come up with that choice. Sorry, but I can't fathom why anyone sees a benefit to it.

Sega said:

The main differences I spotted where the new tags which made things more semantic, this includes:<content><header><nav><article><section><footer>

You mean the pointless and redundant tags that exist JUST to placate the people who slap extra DIV around things for no reason? Section is flat out redundant to DIV -- which is to DIVide the content into sections, NAV's alleged semantics and accessibility doesn't work in anything, and just adds an element to the dom for no reason on what should probably have just been an attribute on lists, HEADER is pointless nonsense since we already HAVE heading tags, and if you bother using heading tags and horizontal rules properly you don't need header, section, content or footer! But apparenlty with people being too stupid to understand how those are supposed to work and after decades of people not bothering to learn more than ten tags and a quarter the attributes, it's time to throw more tags at it, because that will fix everything...

About the only one that makes is Article -- really, I can't say that's worth it either; sure, it might someday help with screen readers and data scrapers, but much like meta tags on files it's just bloat nobody is going to use properly.

Sega said:

The doctype was much easier, as you did not need that long-winded doctype as we had before.

Because god forbid you declare EXACTLY which specification you are using ,have accurate versioning, and a link back to the document defining the structure. (of course, god forbid any of the browser makers got off their blasted backsides and USED said link for what it's FOR!)

Sega said:

There are no self-closing tags either (as I've understood). To be honest I don't like this change. I feel all tags must be closed, or so I was taught back in university. Either case it is what it is and they seam to be history.

Again part of why I think HTML 5 is undoing ALL of the progress of the past decade with STRICT; We finally started to get people on board for this **** two or three years ago, now let's just crap all over it and take a trip in the wayback machine with Mr. Peabody.

Sega said:

I've spotted to pretty cool new video and audio properties.

Which could/should have been applied to OBJECT instead of introducing two new REDUNDANT tags... and of course it's worked wonders for getting it so content providers only have to worry about one data format instead of having to deploy three or four different formats... oh wait, NO IT HASN'T -- It's more fractured than EVER -- It's more fractured than the peak of WMP vs. MOV vs. Flash vs. Realplayer (a fight flash won for good reason) -- These tags exist for the sole purpose of each browser maker pimping their favorite pet codec technology; well, that and letting the teenagers fapping to the idea of Ogg actually feel like their rubbish codec counts for something -- It's almost bad enough to make one wish for the days of Realplayer vs. WMP. I said ALMOST.

Sega said:

I won't be taking a deep plunge just yet, but I feel it's time to start embrassing this new technology. If I missed anything please post something up. Hope this helps others to make the transition too.

I think you meant embracing... though honestly you look too deep into it, it's outright embarrassing what a disaster the steaming pile of manure known as HTML 5 is so far as markup goes.

Again, I can't believe anyone even wants to use it in the first place or sees any advantage to it! It's a step BACKWARDS!!! In terms of coding practices, redundancies, loosening and outright discarding structural rules, and pointless bloat -- it's the worst of HTML 3.2 and browser specific nonsense all over again...

... and now it's getting worse since it's a sick buzzword the suits are latching onto like they did "web 2.0" or "SEO"... where the sleazeball scam artists can just mention it and the suits bob their heads because they heard it mentioned in Forbes.... and getting IT advice from the pages of Forbes is like getting financial advice from Popular Electronics.

Wow, that must have been some heavy drinking and/or smoking to come up with that choice. Sorry, but I can't fathom why anyone sees a benefit to it.

You mean the pointless and redundant tags that exist JUST to placate the people who slap extra DIV around things for no reason? Section is flat out redundant to DIV -- which is to DIVide the content into sections, NAV's alleged semantics and accessibility doesn't work in anything, and just adds an element to the dom for no reason on what should probably have just been an attribute on lists, HEADER is pointless nonsense since we already HAVE heading tags, and if you bother using heading tags and horizontal rules properly you don't need header, section, content or footer! But apparenlty with people being too stupid to understand how those are supposed to work and after decades of people not bothering to learn more than ten tags and a quarter the attributes, it's time to throw more tags at it, because that will fix everything...

About the only one that makes is Article -- really, I can't say that's worth it either; sure, it might someday help with screen readers and data scrapers, but much like meta tags on files it's just bloat nobody is going to use properly.

Because god forbid you declare EXACTLY which specification you are using ,have accurate versioning, and a link back to the document defining the structure. (of course, god forbid any of the browser makers got off their blasted backsides and USED said link for what it's FOR!)

Again part of why I think HTML 5 is undoing ALL of the progress of the past decade with STRICT; We finally started to get people on board for this **** two or three years ago, now let's just crap all over it and take a trip in the wayback machine with Mr. Peabody.

Which could/should have been applied to OBJECT instead of introducing two new REDUNDANT tags... and of course it's worked wonders for getting it so content providers only have to worry about one data format instead of having to deploy three or four different formats... oh wait, NO IT HASN'T -- It's more fractured than EVER -- It's more fractured than the peak of WMP vs. MOV vs. Flash vs. Realplayer (a fight flash won for good reason) -- These tags exist for the sole purpose of each browser maker pimping their favorite pet codec technology; well, that and letting the teenagers fapping to the idea of Ogg actually feel like their rubbish codec counts for something -- It's almost bad enough to make one wish for the days of Realplayer vs. WMP. I said ALMOST.

I think you meant embracing... though honestly you look too deep into it, it's outright embarrassing what a disaster the steaming pile of manure known as HTML 5 is so far as markup goes.

Again, I can't believe anyone even wants to use it in the first place or sees any advantage to it! It's a step BACKWARDS!!! In terms of coding practices, redundancies, loosening and outright discarding structural rules, and pointless bloat -- it's the worst of HTML 3.2 and browser specific nonsense all over again...

... and now it's getting worse since it's a sick buzzword the suits are latching onto like they did "web 2.0" or "SEO"... where the sleazeball scam artists can just mention it and the suits bob their heads because they heard it mentioned in Forbes.... and getting IT advice from the pages of Forbes is like getting financial advice from Popular Electronics.

Ah, c'mon DS. Lighten up. He did say 'kind regards' to you.

Sega, what I think he's trying to say is that HTML5 is still a draft and, while it does help old, poorly developed websites display correctly, it is a step backwards in the general, overall development of the web. I don't think it's a step forward, although it does have some interesting features. To be honest, CSS3 is more exciting.

I wouldn't recommend using it right now. Especially when it's only a draft and still well away from a rec.

Wow, that must have been some heavy drinking and/or smoking to come up with that choice. Sorry, but I can't fathom why anyone sees a benefit to it.

It's the future, and I don't want to be left behind. I see templates and everything else being done in HTML5. I've recently got involved in template development so being up-to-date is important.

You mean the pointless and redundant tags that exist JUST to placate the people who slap extra DIV around things for no reason? Section is flat out redundant to DIV -- which is to DIVide the content into sections, NAV's alleged semantics and accessibility doesn't work in anything, and just adds an element to the dom for no reason on what should probably have just been an attribute on lists, HEADER is pointless nonsense since we already HAVE heading tags, and if you bother using heading tags and horizontal rules properly you don't need header, section, content or footer! But apparenlty with people being too stupid to understand how those are supposed to work and after decades of people not bothering to learn more than ten tags and a quarter the attributes, it's time to throw more tags at it, because that will fix everything...

These new tags make reading the code easier. You're completely right, as they are all DIV tags, irrespective of their name. The new properties allow you to section the page easier. If I thought HTML5 was going to be dropped I'd not bother learning it.

Again part of why I think HTML 5 is undoing ALL of the progress of the past decade with STRICT; We finally started to get people on board for this **** two or three years ago, now let's just crap all over it and take a trip in the wayback machine with Mr. Peabody.

I was onboard years ago, but I dread to think of myself using an old markup language.

I think you meant embracing... though honestly you look too deep into it, it's outright embarrassing what a disaster the steaming pile of manure known as HTML 5 is so far as markup goes.

Here is a question for you, where do you see HTML5 in the future, and do you really see it vanishing before people make it the standard.

Edit:

TehYoyo said:

Ah, c'mon DS. Lighten up. He did say 'kind regards' to you.

I find the perspective funny yet true at the same time. all in good fun. I love reading some his posts anyhow

Sega, what I think he's trying to say is that HTML5 is still a draft and, while it does help old, poorly developed websites display correctly, it is a step backwards in the general, overall development of the web.

I don't understand your thinking here. "Old, poorly developed websites" will presumably have been built before HTML5 was even a twinkle in the eye of the W3C.

I wouldn't recommend using it right now. Especially when it's only a draft and still well away from a rec.

Template Forest has lots of HTML5 templates and they seem to be selling quite well. In fact I listen to Grooveshark and that's been coded in HTML5. There is a dozen or so games developed using HTML5 including Angry Birds and Cut the Robe. People, companies and even Sitepoint (look at the homepage) are pushing HTML5 is if people are suppose to be using it now.

Template Forest has lots of HTML5 templates and they seem to be selling quite well. In fact I listen to Grooveshark and that's been coded in HTML5. There is a dozen or so games developed using HTML5 including Angry Birds and Cut the Robe. People, companies and even Sitepoint (look at the homepage) are pushing HTML5 is if people are suppose to be using it now.

Well then those people are wrong. People proclaim that HTML5 will be good (which, it probably will). Not that you should drop everything and use it. The homepage for Sitepoint is XHTML strict, a good doctype to use. Sure, companies develop in HTML5. Google, Facebook, use the HTML5 doctype, which is alright (and advised by @samanime. I'm curious to hear his/her motives as to this. You shouldn't, however use the new tags, though, because users w/out JavaScript on IE will have it broken.

TechnoBear:

I don't understand your thinking here. "Old, poorly developed websites" will presumably have been built before HTML5 was even a twinkle in the eye of the W3C.

What I'm trying to say is that HTML5 increases acceptance for previously deprecated attributes and tags like target and align (if I'm not mistaken)

XHTML is much closer in the future than HTML 5 is. To be able to use XHTML we just need to wait for IE8 to die off since it and earlier versions of IE didn't support XHTML.

HTML 5 is still only at the working draft stage and contains lots of tags that serve the same purpose or contradict one another. A draft standard exists so that people can try out the alternatives to work out which of them works best. Presumably most of these superfluous tags will be gone by the time that HTML 5 reaches the ALPHA (candidate) release stage. When HTML 5 is finally released for general use it will need to have a more specific doctype in order to 1. be able to distinguish between the final version and the current early draft in what is allowed and 2. to be able to specify whether obsolete tags and attributes should be allowed in the page or not. If you run a page using the current doctype through a validator the validator has no way to tell whether the page is written in HTML 2 or HTML 5 as that doctype is equally valid for both of those versions and everything in between.

To be able to actually use HTML 5 properly will probably require waiting for IE15 to die (or possibly Chrome 168) as one or more such browser will probably not recognise everything properly according to the final standard.

So XHTML 5 is a lot further away in the future before it will be able to be used properly than XHTML is.

What I'm trying to say is that HTML5 increases acceptance for previously deprecated attributes and tags like target and align (if I'm not mistaken)

Ummm... tags that were deprecated in HTML4 were deprecated for good reason. Those of us who care about web standards, accessibility, etc. don't use them, and don't find them any more "acceptable" because they might be back in the HTML5 specs. Browsers will go on displaying them the way they always have, so old, badly-built sites will still work as well as they ever did. That's to do with browsers, not HTML5. As deathshadow60 and others keep saying, HTML5 is a backwards step - and (IMO) they're right.

Looking at this thread and reading some people's concern that something may actually change and it's out of their control, brings a movie to mind.

And no, it's not Great Expectations (1946), it's The 40 Year Old Virgin (2005). LOL

Stop with the whining and use it already

Or don't. Just stop trying to tell others not to try it. That's just wrong.

Let's be practical.

Logic and facts says no spec will ever be at least 75% supported by all browsers. That doesn't stop people proclaiming about XHTML. Which even now it's not fully supported by all UAs. And I have yet to see HTML5 breaking pages like XHTML does.

If we were to expect for all browsers and all users to reach the same technological level, we would never could understand what's wrong with earlier versions.

And that's why those that want to try HTML5 should be supported. The earlier adoption and the earlier use, the faster it's weaknesses will be revealed. They do all the work for you. So let's be supportive.

Standing on our hands will not bring us a magical spec and a magical browser.

That's why I think an open mind an a clear voice is better. Let's not love to hate.

Criticizing is easy. How about showing what can be done the best with what there is. After all, HTML5 means hard work. Let's respect that.

And if you want something to criticize, turn to CSS3. It's taking over content and behavior with easy implementations for feats that otherwise required more knowledge. Javascript should be easier instead, and jQuery certainly helps us. Another hard work example taken lightly.

And even then, use a reasonable tone. HTML5 and CSS3 are there trying to help us all. If one wants stuff made to feel good about him self, one should build it. Otherwise, one should use it. Or not. Respectfully.

And HTML5's <nav> it's not meant to replace that <div> or <ul> with a "nav" id. That's plain moronic, to think something like that. It's meant to finally put an element in place with what www is all about: navigation.

Ummm... tags that were deprecated in HTML4 were deprecated for good reason. Those of us who care about web standards, accessibility, etc. don't use them, and don't find them any more "acceptable" because they might be back in the HTML5 specs. Browsers will go on displaying them the way they always have, so old, badly-built sites will still work as well as they ever did. That's to do with browsers, not HTML5. As deathshadow60 and others keep saying, HTML5 is a backwards step - and (IMO) they're right.

Wait...didn't I say that?

itmitică;5082157:

Looking at this thread and reading some people's concern that something may actually change and it's out of their control, brings a movie to mind.

And no, it's not Great Expectations (1946), it's The 40 Year Old Virgin (2005). LOL

I don't get it. What movie is this?

Stop with the whining and use it already

Or don't. Just stop trying to tell others not to try it. That's just wrong.

It's wrong to advocate web practices? Huh. Looks in web rules book Ah...nope. don't see it. We're (or at least I'm) not trying to tell other people to not try it. But to use it, I wouldn't advise.

Let's be practical.

Oh, we're being very practical.

Logic and facts says no spec will ever be at least 75% supported by all browsers. That doesn't stop people proclaiming about XHTML. Which even now it's not fully supported by all UAs. And I have yet to see HTML5 breaking pages like XHTML does.

Even so, even if it doesn't "break" web pages, it supports bad practice and takes a step backwards into sloppy web development.

Standing on our hands will not bring us a magical spec and a magical browser.

Which is why we're advocating best practices and trying to get developers (not users/clients) to get to the level that they should be at.

That's why I think an open mind an a clear voice is better. Let's not love to hate.

Let's not make generalizations. I like to think that I have both. And I don't think I've done anything that would imply that I "love to hate".

Criticizing is easy. How about showing what can be done the best with what there is. After all, HTML5 means hard work. Let's respect that.

Exactly. Let's do our best with the specifications and recommendations.

And if you want something to criticize, turn to CSS3. It's taking over content and behavior with easy implementations for feats that otherwise required more knowledge. Javascript should be easier instead, and jQuery certainly helps us. Another hard work example taken lightly.

Huh? On the contrary, I really like CSS3. And I would recommend using CSS over JavaScript because it's easier to understand/implement. And it's quicker (?).

Most people like to use the (X)HTML Strict DOCTYPEs because it enforcing good coding standards. However, I think this is a bit redundant. If you are a good coder and following good standards, why do you need to have the DOCTYPE to force you? If you code good HTML, it should validate. HTML 5 makes the self-closing /> optional, so you can use it or not, depending if you want to write XHTML or HTML. I personally prefer the later. It doesn't make my code any less standards compliant, and doesn't make my code any more sloppy.

When I validate, I want to validate strictly, so I'll generally mask the DOCTYPE, but that's because the HTML 5 validator is still experimental.

On the topic of the new HTML 5 tags, I have to admit... I see the point of some of them.

I'm working on a new pet project of mine and decided there was no harm in playing around with some of the new tags. I still think nav is redundant and won't use it. However, after doing some research I see a point to section, article (and header and footer).

DS claims it is redundant to div, but after doing more research, I have to disagree.

A section is a specific block of content. While this is sometimes redundant with div, it isn't always. The reason is sometimes you just have to use a div for a certain effect.

Take this for example (assume there is more and your code legitimately should look like this =p):

Now, if a machine was to look at that, it has two choices: treat main and section both as a section of the site (and thus wind up with redundant blocks) or treat them both as fluff and ignore their logical groupings altogether.

I will be honest. The only reason I have considered using HTML5 on a project is that I won't be left behind in the dust. I can fully understand that considering it seems to be all the hype these days. I have read and experimented with it but have yet to truly use it to it's capacity on any professional project for the reasons mentioned. Though I have developed "HTML5" sites by merely using the "HTML5" doctype. That is really the only way one can quantify a document as "HTML5" anyway. This is not say that if a project requires a useful "HTML5" technology like geolocation I won't use it. However, when I have total control over HTML I start with HTML4, validate against it than merely switch the doctype. I like deathshadow60 do find the new tags to be quit cumbersome and in many ways pointless. Though I definitely relate to the peer proessure of using it and fear one might fall behind the times given all the promotion it has. I don't see that going away anytime soon and I don't really forsee the w3c rewriting the spec in major way. Given that and peer pressure blame it on the w3c not the developers using it I say. I mean… it is near impossible to come across a job classified what doesn't mention to some capacity HTML5. So perhaps it all comes down – Don't hate the player hate the game.

I think Wikipedia actually has a really clear explanation of what a W3C working draft (which is the stage HTML 5 is currently at) really means:

At the working draft level, the standard is published for review by "the community". A WD document is the first form of a standard that is publicly available. Commentary by virtually anyone is accepted, though no promises are made with regard to action on any particular element of said commentary.

At this stage, the standard document may likely have significant differences from its final form. As such, any who implement WD standards should be ready to significantly modify their implementations as the standard matures.

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is the main international standards organization for the World Wide Web (abbreviated WWW or W3). Founded and currently led by Tim Berners-Lee, the consortium is made up of member organizations which maintain full-time staff for the purpose of working together in the development of standards for the World Wide Web. As of 24 May 2014[update], the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has 385 members. W3C also engages in education and outreach, develops software and ser...

(emphasis mine)

Basically it exists so you can try it out and then tell them what parts are useful and what parts are garbage. All the garbage parts will eventually be removed from the draft.

Well people have to think they are garbage first. With the big names that are promoting them I don't see them being scrapped. Seems like every well known developer is promoting the newer HTML5 tags these days.

I have to completely agree with oddz here. I found many jobs which ask for HTML5 and CSS3, and this hype is really pushing things forward. How much will HTML5 change is unbeknown to me. I feel the old tags will probably go, and also a doctype will be incorporated. This self-enclosing thing is bull in my humble opinion.

To be honest I don't remember which tags were dropped in the XHTML revision back in the uni days, maybe somebody should remind me. In either case what I started learning I stuck with, and this would be my goal with HTML5. Using something that lasts, and not using it only having to change my methods once again.

When HTML5 is officially releases people would be looking at I don't know, HTML6. HTML5 might be a Vista of the web, who knows. I personally don't feel it would go in this direction. XHTML is the proper way of doing things, but just like jQuery took over traditionally coding JavaScript, HTML5 will be preferred to XHTML as it's easier.

If that's the future, I'm fine RIGHT HERE. Newer isn't always better, and it's not like the old specifications (that are ACTUALLY specifications) are going anywhere.

Sega:

I see templates and everything else being done in HTML5. I've recently got involved in template development so being up-to-date is important.

... and with 99% of stock templates being asshat rubbish only nubes are typically dumb enough to try to use, it's not exactly surprising these are the folks embracing this nonsense. That turdpress now defaults to it along with the rest of their markup that screams "we have no business making HTML or CSS" it only further compounds the issue.

Sega:

These new tags make reading the code easier.

I don't find it so because they are nothing more than extra tags in the markup that are likely wrapping tags that ALREADY HAVE meanings. More code is not the answer, just as more tags is not the answer.

The majority of people writing code right now are blissfully unaware of two-thirds the tags we're supposed to be using; LEGEND, LABEL, TH, THEAD, TBODY, CAPTION, DEL, FIELDSET, BLOCKQUOTE -- most people writing code can't even keep PRE and CODE straight, and waste time wrapping tags that already have meanings in extra elements like DL or tables.... THROWING MORE TAGS AT THEM IS NOT THE ANSWER when people can't even keep straight what we already have!

Much less their all being redundant -- STRICT was ABOUT removing redundancies and getting rid of browser specific crap; HTML 5 is about adding redundancies and getting down on one's knees in front of the proverbial equine known as the browser makers.

Sega:

You're completely right, as they are all DIV tags, irrespective of their name. The new properties allow you to section the page easier.

I'm not saying they're DIV tags, I'm saying they are pointless extra wrappers that shouldn't even be in the markup in the first place if people would bother having logical document structure and using numbered headings with horizontal rules PROPERLY...

Sega:

If I thought HTML5 was going to be dropped I'd not bother learning it.

It's probably not going anywhere, there's just no legitimate reason to use it apart from nube predation, selling more books and seats at lectures, and giving the suits a new buzzword they don't actually understand. It most certainly is NOT about writing sites in a better manner or actually making development easier/clearer/cleaner/faster.

Sega:

I was onboard years ago, but I dread to think of myself using an old markup language.

Would you want the car you're driving your family around in to be built by committee using a draft specification? Or would you prefer tried and true methods that work in the here and now and are unlikely to ever break moving forward.

... and even if it does finally leave 'draft' it offers no benefits other than bloating out pages for NOTHING, further fracturing the already fractured codec scene, and pissing all over accessibility in the name of improving it. Does the term "snake oil" ring a bell?

Sega:

Here is a question for you, where do you see HTML5 in the future, and do you really see it vanishing before people make it the standard.

While I hope so, I think with so many people on-board it's going to be an uphill fight to stamp out this idiocy just as we STILL have people today sleazing out tranny with their heads stuck up 1997's backside... which is EXACTLY what we need to do with it; STAMP IT OUT -- We need to spread the word that this sick new trend offers ZERO real world improvements.

That or wait for HTML 6 to come in both transitional and STRICT, with STRICT deprecating most of what's in 5.

TechnoBear:

I don't understand your thinking here. "Old, poorly developed websites" will presumably have been built before HTML5 was even a twinkle in the eye of the W3C.

Actually it makes perfect sense -- because all the asshat bull we've been told NOT to do since STRICT was introduced is now perfectly fine and acceptable in 5. Again, the loosening of the structural rules and undoing of everything STRICT gave us is precisely why HTML 5 is meant for the people who were still writing HTML 3.2 and slapping a 4 tranny doctype on it. Now they can wrap HTML 5's lip-service around it and continue to sleaze out their crappy code any old way; GO PROGRESS!

Remember, 5 is documentative, not authoritive -- which is why it's an insult to engineers everywhere to even call this bull a specification!

TechnoBear:

Ummm... tags that were deprecated in HTML4 were deprecated for good reason. Those of us who care about web standards, accessibility, etc. don't use them, and don't find them any more "acceptable" because they might be back in the HTML5 specs.

... and is EXACTLY why I reject HTML 5 outright. Call me when someone who understood the point of STRICT is put in charge and they go back to saying what you SHOULD use and deprecate all the garbage you shouldn't! Maybe remove all the stupid new redundant nonsense while at it?

Until then I'm sticking with XHTML 1.0 Strict... STRICT for saying "don't use things you shouldn't be using" and XHTML for the consistent/improved structural rules.

itmitică;5082157:

Or don't. Just stop trying to tell others not to try it. That's just wrong.

BULLCOOKIES -- that is NOT an attitude consistent with trying to achieve PROGRESS.... as George Bernard Shaw said:

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therein, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

We need to start a "just say no campaign" -- this is your website; this is your website on HTML 5 -- any questions?

itmitică;5082157:

That doesn't stop people proclaiming about XHTML. Which even now it's not fully supported by all UAs. And I have yet to see HTML5 breaking pages like XHTML does.

Gehugafugah?!? XHTML 1.0 works just fine within it's purpose all the way back to IE 5.0 and Nyetscape 4 -- that's what it's for, a formulation to allow HTML to be parsed both by HTML parsers and XML parsers; it was NEVER meant to be a full XML formulation and if you follow the compatibility guidelines for it, it works just fine. The only reason to choose XHTML 1 over other specs is the more consistent structural rules.

Now, if you're talking XHTML 2 or that XML application idiocy, then sure... but that's crap that really has no point being used on the web in the first place!

itmitică;5082157:

And that's why those that want to try HTML5 should be supported. The earlier adoption and the earlier use, the faster it's weaknesses will be revealed. They do all the work for you. So let's be supportive.

Or we could just nuke the WhatWG from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

itmitică;5082157:

That's why I think an open mind an a clear voice is better. Let's not love to hate.

In other words feel good nonsense and "status quo for the win" -- so much for progress.

itmitică;5082157:

Criticizing is easy. How about showing what can be done the best with what there is. After all, HTML5 means hard work. Let's respect that.

I find it to be the opposite of hard work -- because it just further justifies sleazing pages out any old way to the point you might as well go back to using HTML 3.2 and slapping a 4 tranny doctype on it... Net change or improvement ZERO!

itmitică;5082157:

And if you want something to criticize, turn to CSS3.

What's wrong with 3? Admittedly the new column stuff is a train wreck, but what's available in the here and now is useful and gracefully degrades. Far, FAR less to complain about than the unmitigated idiocy HTML 5 brings to the table.

HELL, it's why the new javascript stuff and CSS3 have been put under HTML 5's banner -- as without them the emperor has no clothes.

itmitică;5082157:

It's taking over content and behavior with easy implementations for feats that otherwise required more knowledge.

You say that like it's a bad thing...

itmitică;5082157:

Javascript should be easier instead, and jQuery certainly helps us. Another hard work example taken lightly.

Ok, we're done here -- if you are using that fat bloated cryptic idiotic nonsense that bills itself as "making cross browser scripting easier" when 90% of it's codebase is blot for useless ugly pain in the ass animooted nonsense; In fact being the driving factor in why so many websites that used to be useful are now useless to myself and many others....

Just wow man... WOW. Take all the hate I have for HTML 5, and multiply it tenfold for the idiotic jquery BULL!!!

itmitică;5082157:

And even then, use a reasonable tone. HTML5 and CSS3 are there trying to help us all.

You mean XML, not XHTML -- the point of XHTML was to be a reformulation of HTML that XML could parse -- it was NOT TO TURN HTML INTO A FULL XML IMPLEMENTATION!!! -- at least not in the 1.0 version of the specification. Made up ******** tags in fact were such a inconsistent mess it's why X2 was backed away from faster than light.

I see people making that same nonsensical claim over and over again -- and all I can say is "have you even bothered READING much less COMPREHENDING the XHTML specification?!?" -- that's the same bekaptah fiction as the people who think XHTML should mean they can go <div /> or that what serving it as text/html somehow magically makes it not be XHTML... When the specification that says what XHTML is says text/html is valid, shorttags only works on EMPTY elements (DIV is never an "Empty" element), and it says quite clearly:

XHTML is a family of current and future document types and modules that reproduce, subset, and extend HTML 4 [HTML4]. XHTML family document types are XML based, and ultimately are designed to work in conjunction with XML-based user agents.

XML based, NOT A FULL XML IMPLEMENTATION - it's a reproduction of HTML 4 in a XML namepsace -- that's it. People seem to want to read more into it which just isn't there!

itmitică;5082157:

And HTML5's <nav> it's not meant to replace that <div> or <ul> with a "nav" id. That's plain moronic, to think something like that. It's meant to finally put an element in place with what www is all about: navigation.

Extra DOM element for nothing since you'd still need the block level containers inside it (like the list) at which point why not just make it an attribute for lists instead of polluting the DOM making scripts run slower and have CSS have to work harder?

'nav' -- like most of the new allegedly semantic structural containers seems to be JUST for the people who were slapping a div around their UL for nothing and some vague accessibility crap that honestly, is wasting markup on way too small a portion of the audience then sending it to everyone; at which point... file it alongside the idiotic rubbish of using IE conditional comments for CSS -- or WORSE, to determine what classes are applied to an HTML tag. (a sure fire indicator whoever is writing the page needs to learn more CSS first!)

Of course I even hate the name "nav" because it's uselessly vague; I hate it as a class or ID, I hate it as a tag, because every blasted anchor on a page is 'navigation'. It does not clearly define what it is... and it's just been encouraging people who don't bother reading the specification to turn their menus into run-on sentences by removing their lists and block level containers.

Goes back to something Dan Schulz once said (even had as a sig here for a while)

the people who used to write endless nested tables for no reason now just write endless nested DIV for no reason.

Exactly the crowd for whom HTML 5 seems tailored -- can't possibly leverage the existing semantic tags for meaning and target those -- of course not. Now they have allegedly semantic tags they can wrap around their existing semantic tags for no reason...

Yeah, that's a real improvement.

Something sucks, you come out and say it suck, you get off your ass and tell people it sucks and actively try to prevent it from taking something you used to find useful and letting the sleazeball scam artists pissing all over it and lead people down the gardent path to failure with their snake oil.

Basically: Lead, follow or get out of the way. That's how we make the world a better place instead of this soft, drum circle feel-good status-quo nonsense. "If you can't say anything nice" being a cop-out by thin skinned wussies who can't be bothered to get motivated about anything but complaining about the sheep dogs trying to protect them from the wolves.

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen: a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath--a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? Then you are a sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero’s path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

The majority of people writing code right now are blissfully unaware of two-thirds the tags we're supposed to be using; LEGEND, LABEL, TH, THEAD, TBODY, CAPTION, DEL, FIELDSET, BLOCKQUOTE -- most people writing code can't even keep PRE and CODE straight, and waste time wrapping tags that already have meanings in extra elements like DL or tables.... THROWING MORE TAGS AT THEM IS NOT THE ANSWER when people can't even keep straight what we already have!

You've got a point there. The simplicity of HTML5 with it's <header><footer> tags would probably get used either way because of they are layout specific tags rather than markup tags. Which brings another argument to this. It would make no difference having <header> in the footer and <footer> in the header, as it's just markup and nothing to do with presentation. This draws an argument to why it should be used in the first place.

deathshadow60 said:

Actually it makes perfect sense -- because all the asshat bull we've been told NOT to do since STRICT was introduced is now perfectly fine and acceptable in 5.

Doesn't really make sense actually! I means if it was so bad why have they reverted to it now. In fact why have they made HTML5 they way it is?

To be fair I can't see HTML5 disappearing, I an not entirely sure why the it was done like this preventing it from being given an official stamp. I really don't want to wait for HTML6 to come out or XHTML 3.0 is whatever they like to call it. I started coding back in 2001, HTML4 was the norm (if I was correct), where nested tables and title-case for tags were the in things. 12 years later we've only really gone from HTML4 to XHTML. I don't want to wait another 10 years for something to officially be called a standard. People were talking about CSS3 when I was in uni and that was back in 2005. We've only just started using it NOW! and it's 2012 (end of the world presumably) and it's not even a standard yet! Can you see what I am getting at. In terms of markup things but very slow.

I means if it was so bad why have they reverted to it now. In fact why have they made HTML5 they way it is?

Because it's made by/for the people who didn't embrace the entire NOTION of strict, or progress. It's basically throwing up their hands and saying "fine, go ahead and sleaze out pages any old way, who cares". I mean that's basically who created the WhatWG in the first place!

Progress - that's what it is. SURE... (for those of you unfamiliar with it, that's called Sarcasm)

It's why again, HTML 5 is documentative - it's trying to document what's possible instead of saying what we should do; and that's not how one should write a specification used for building things. Construction specifications by definition should be authoritative; dictatorial even... 4 Strict was authoritative. Don't use these, don't use these, get rid of these, etc, etc...